Pages

Monday, November 26, 2012

When recessions become prolonged and long-term unemployment rises, the conservative denial machinery always scapegoats the most disadvantaged by recommending cuts to welfare to make people more desperate. This is dressed up in terms that attempt to make this sort of policy sound reasonable – like we should all be adventurous and entrepreneurial. The facts are that mass unemployment represents a macroeconomic failure that can be addressed by expansionary fiscal and/or monetary policy. It has nothing to do with the provision of the miserly amounts that are given to the unemployed via income support arrangements. Cutting those benefits will not cure involuntary unemployment. In all likelihood, cutting benefits will make the aggregate demand shortfall that caused the unemployment to worsen. The result is that the cuts will only make the lives of the unemployed more desperate than they already are. It is time that the conservatives learned about macroeconomic constraints....

Macroeconomics teaches us that individual choice can be rendered powerless as a result of the presence of macroeconomic constraints – most usually spending constraints on the product market that ration the number of overall jobs and working hours that will be on offer at any point in time to an economy.

Once an economy is operating under such a demand constraint, the supply-side of the economy loses traction – that is, no longer influences the market outcome, which renders much of the orthodox labour market analysis irrelevant, if not false.

Only a select few are adventurous and entrepreneurial…and for an entrepreneur to succeed he must utilize labor to multiply his individual capabilities.

It is a symbiotic relationship between the parasite (entrepreneur) and the host (workers). The entrepreneur is a parasite because his/her gains come at the expense of the host, not because he/she is a bad person. Extracting so much it kills the host is what moves them into bad territory.

Defining entrepreneurs as parasites isn't meant to imply they are bad, it's reality because mathematically that is the only option. Something cannot be created out of nothing.

It follows that since the host has no financial resources of it's own the government must provide them.

I finally get it. No matter how criminally insane a government spending program might be, putting an end to it will MAKE PEOPLE FIND ALTERNATIVE THINGS TO DO AND ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO MAKE A LIVING.

How cruel.

And, of course, peaceful, voluntary business relationships are parasitic. Relationships based upon the violent seizure of resources and enforced with the threat of prison (or worse) by SWAT teams are to be worshiped.

By bothering to respond to his drivel we are tendering a certain amount of respect to him. He probably isn't treated this well at other sites…plus, when you get right down to it, MNE is where all of the MMT'rs hang out.

Too bad Bob can't bring himself to extend the same courtesy to us. He's downright insulting to Mike.

If you choose to break the law, then the law is usually enforced, though this doesn't necessarily involve any violence either.

Only if you're Peter Schiff's dad and you can't read, and hate tax so much that you're willing to physically fight with the police over it, then the law enforcement will probably involve some physical force or violence.

I wonder how he feels about "activist" courts? Presumably it's an outrage unless its in the spirit of his worldview. From his website, A Judge's Duty…

"When an unconstitutional law comes before a judge, whether passed by Congress, a state legislature or a local council, it is the duty of such Judge to strike it down as null and void."

Buuuuuuttt…. there are different interpretations of the constitution. For example, the line before the above quote: "An important reason for this sad state of affairs is the failure of judges on all levels to protect the essential Constitutional mandates of individual liberty, private property, sound money and freedom of contract."

Of course, this is why Ron Paul proposed slashing the military empire budget first. Just to harm poor people.

Cutting military spending in a country where the economy has become dependent upon it, with military contractors is virtually all congressional districts would be suicidal economically and for politicians unless done is a coordinated way. The US ramped up for the Cold War. Now it needs to stand down but not in a way that damages the economy. This is going to be very tricky socially, politically and economically, which is a big reason that no one in power wants to rush into it. The US has created a snake pit for itself and it will not a simple matter to unwind it. So far, there has been just about zero debate about the real issues in this regard.

Only a select few are adventurous and entrepreneurial…and for an entrepreneur to succeed he must utilize labor to multiply his individual capabilities.

And only a select few entrepreneurs become successful in starting business that last. Most fail in the first year and the five year rate is abysmal. That means the investment goes down the drain and debts are settled in bankruptcy.

"The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

As proof that 'paper money' is unconstitutional.

But they ignore:

"The Congress shall have Power... To borrow money on the credit of the United States... To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States"

!!!!

Federal Reserve notes are "obligations of the United States", that is, government debts, or government securities!

www.law.cornell.edu › USC › Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII

They can be redeemed on demand for Treasury Coin (a form of government 'equity'), and Treasury coins can be made from either 'precious' metal or 'base' metal.

The Austro-libertarians have nothing. In fact they are enemies of the Constitution, starting with the very beginning: "We the People". There is no "we the people" in austro-libertarian dystopia world, only "We the Proprietors".

The Articles of Confederation granted Congress the power to Emit Bills of Credit, which meant issue paper money. The Constitutional Convention debated in detail a motion striking that clause/power and voted to remove it. Thus, the US Government has no power to issue paper money.

A further debate ensued and it was determined that there would be an absolute ban on any state emitting bills of credit. The Feds were denied the power, the states were prohibited from exercising such power.

This resulted in “The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin....

Under Article I, Section 10, the states are not permitted to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.."

"That means the investment goes down the drain and debts are settled in bankruptcy."

This is likely a net good for the economy since no profit is extracted and banks and investors are forced to dis-save. It creates flow.

Basically what you are describing is creative destruction, whereby comanies that produce less useful products or are poorly managed are replaced by other companies that produce better products.

Yes, but the argument was that the jobless should create jobs through entrepreneurship. That is just bonkers given well-known results. It would actually work the other way for most, since most would fail and many would find themselves in bankruptcy court.

This is nothing againsts entrepreneurship, of course. Jus' sayin' that as a macro solution to UE it's silly.